* 11 slams > 16 slams
* 3 goats > 1 goat
* old Fed is playing his best tennis, but Nadal 2004-07 doesn't count b/c he's still a baby
* level competition only includes the top 3 players, not the entire field
* GS final match is the be-all and end-all, the previous 6 matches is pointless

That's fine with me. I'd prefer to be on the opposite side of a debate from you, since your main strategy is reposting, rehashing, quoting the same interviews and articles and USING BIG SIZES TO COMPENSATE

Click to expand...

Because you simply try and explain everything away . You are able to argue that the sky is not really blue and go in forever.

But when Federer himself and every other Goat cannot convince you then it's time to admit that you simply refuse to see that which is true.

You plug up your ears like a child and stamp your feet . You dig in your heels and even at gunpoint you wouldn't admit it.

If Federer wins its an argument against him, if Djok and Nadal loose its an argument for them. This is circular arguing at its simplest. Which is why, after 1653 posts, the OP still stands. I rest my case. Honourable mention for Night and Order for stamina. They are the beasts of TW.

Because you simply try and explain everything away . You are able to argue that the sky is not really blue and go in forever.

But when Federer himself and every other Goat cannot convince you then it's time to admit that you simply refuse to see that which is true.

You plug up your ears like a child and stamp your feet . You dig in your heels and even at gunpoint you wouldn't admit it.

Click to expand...

I haven't explained anything away. I don't know if you've noticed, but I haven't been the one making excuses for Fed's losses. I'm not trying to "explain things away".

Your premise is that the top 3 are all that matters in tennis. I disagree. It's really as simple as that.

Additionally, the talking heads and past and present players are all representing tennis. Each one of them is attempting to gain support and interest in tennis, especially the people in the United States, where tennis sorely lacks popularity and viewership. Additionally, the media deals in hyperbole, so forgive me for not blindly buying in to everything said on TV and in interviews.

Tsonga, Murray, Berdych, Del Potro? These guys are all around their age and capable of beating them. In fact, all 4 of them have beaten either Rafa or Novak in a major before.

With Fed he had Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, old Agassi, Safin, Davydenko, Blake, Gonzalez, out of those Safin was the only one who proved he could get the job done in a major...

So its quite obvious Fed's competition wasn't as strong it's just the Fed fan in you that cannot admit it.

Click to expand...

Circular reasoning. Djoko and Nadal are better because they lost more??

Regarding Fed, you left out Nalby who did beat him more than once in majors before he got going. Before Fed took off at the end of 2003 he had losses in tournament play to Agassi, Ferrero, Safin, Hewitt and Roddick and Nalby was his nemesis.

In fact after Fed won 2003 Wimby he lost later that year to Nalby twice, Ferrero, Roddick and Hewitt.

He came into 2003 TMC on the back of all those losses, not to mention that he'd never beaten Agassi in his career. He turned everything around at that event.

Nadal and Djokovic took much much longer to establish dominance (outside of Nadal on clay) while once Fed broke through he was off to the races.

That's why they have more pre-peak GS losses against other good players than him.

First of all, in tennis, as in any sport, the level of play is always improving (I guess "level of play" would have to be measured by average speed of groundstrokes and serves, physical fitness of players, and a few other metrics). The game gets more competitive at every level, every year.

Second of all, the fact that there was a greater variety of finalists to face Federer in 2003-2007 does not mean he had it easy. The guys who made it to the final in a given tournament were on fire during that tournament. Just because they weren't on fire as consistently (á la Nadal or Djokovic) does not mean they were any less difficult to defeat when they were on fire. (Say it were true that the same 2 or 3 Rookie players always showed up in the final match, while the Champs tournaments, on the other hand, always seemed to have a different set of players in the final. Would that mean that Champs is less competitive?)

Third of all, Roddick, Safin, and the other supposed "light weights" of yesteryear were not in fact lightweights. Roddick was hitting 25 aces per game and successfully charging the net off his forehand. Against a prime 2003-2005 Roddick on a 2003-2005 hard court, Nadal got whooped, and I bet Djokovic would've too.

Fourth of all, the fact that Nadal and Djokovic, both of whom originally had trouble against Federer, were eventually able to crack him (when he reached age 28+), does not mean they are better players. But suppose it does mean that. Then we can apply the same argument for any player, since they all reach a state of permanent decline at some point (Not to say that Federer has reached permanent decline). "Player X used to beat player Y, but eventually player Y started to beat player X. Therefore player X was never better than player Y; he only was able to beat player X before player X had reached his full potential."

Discuss.

Click to expand...

You can dispel a myth but you can't dispel a fact, the fact is fed benefitted greatly from the weak pigeons he played to win most of his majors against.

You can dispel a myth but you can't dispel a fact, the fact is fed benefitted greatly from the weak pigeons he played to win most of his majors against.

Click to expand...

Which "weak pigeons" are we talking about? The level of playing in professional tennis over time, as in any sport, is a monotonically increasing function. It's not like it took a sudden downturn for a few years. People keep forgetting that Roddick and Safin used to be good players.

One other thing: Federer was not cut out for the modern baseline game on slow hard courts. He is by nature an aggressive player who plays best like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlTbDY9p8r4 or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz77Oy6mjnM. Nadal is a clay court expert who could easily transition his player to the slow hard courts. Djokovic entered when the courts when the courts were slow, so he was ready from the beginning. The fact that Federer has been able to play so well against grinders is amazing. Oh, and there's still the fact that he:

(1) Is able to keep up with a 1-handed backhand
(2) Never has forfeited a match because of injury; always plays through, even when he's sick
(3) Is 31

Which "weak pigeons" are we talking about? The level of playing in professional tennis over time, as in any sport, is a monotonically increasing function. It's not like it took a sudden downturn for a few years. People keep forgetting that Roddick and Safin used to be good players.

One other thing: Federer was not cut out for the modern baseline game on slow hard courts. He is by nature an aggressive player who plays best like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlTbDY9p8r4 or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz77Oy6mjnM. Nadal is a clay court expert who could easily transition his player to the slow hard courts. Djokovic entered when the courts when the courts were slow, so he was ready from the beginning. The fact that Federer has been able to play so well against grinders is amazing. Oh, and there's still the fact that he:

(1) Is able to keep up with a 1-handed backhand
(2) Never has forfeited a match because of injury; always plays through, even when he's sick
(3) Is 31

Click to expand...

Roddick was good for a couple of years now safin was a real talent but unfortunately was an idiot that would be out smoking and drinking the night before matches.

The powerhouse players that were on top when fed took over were the likes of hewitt, juan carlos ferrer, burnt out agassi and other weaklings. Just check the list of his opponents in the majority of his major victory's.

Roddick was good for a couple of years now safin was a real talent but unfortunately was an idiot that would be out smoking and drinking the night before matches.

The powerhouse players that were on top when fed took over were the likes of hewitt, juan carlos ferrer, burnt out agassi and other weaklings. Just check the list of his opponents in the majority of his major victory's.

Click to expand...

And where are they now?

Ferrero is ranked I believe 17....the former #1 disappeared when Nadal came on the scene

Roddick former #1 not in the top 10

Agassi limped out years ago

Safin retired ....he was never a constant

Blake....well where is he?

Hewitt....what's his rank?

Coria....destroyed by Nadal...he quit

Gaudio....gone

Gonzo....gone

Bagdatis .....who?

Philopusis .....was great on a reality show of milfs

Verekman....or whatever his name is....nothing

I mean not one of them made it anywhere. 28 out the last 29 won by the fearsome three.

By the way, tennis players (and all competitors i guess) are biased. You would be hard pressed to find one who said: "Oh I lost a step or two in the last years...". And of course if they did they would be accused of making excuses.

Ferrero is ranked I believe 17....the former #1 disappeared when Nadal came on the scene

Roddick former #1 not in the top 10

Agassi limped out years ago

Safin retired ....he was never a constant

Blake....well where is he?

Hewitt....what's his rank?

Coria....destroyed by Nadal...he quit

Gaudio....gone

Gonzo....gone

Bagdatis .....who?

Philopusis .....was great on a reality show of milfs

Verekman....or whatever his name is....nothing

I mean not one of them made it anywhere. 28 out the last 29 won by the fearsome three.

3 goats > 1 goat.

Click to expand...

Roddick was top ten for ten years, not bad. Asking where players are who have stopped playing, or are in the twilight of their career is really uhm unintelligent. And that Federer is part of your fearsome three in the end of his career is only a an argument in his favour (for the umpteenth time..).

Which "weak pigeons" are we talking about? The level of playing in professional tennis over time, as in any sport, is a monotonically increasing function. It's not like it took a sudden downturn for a few years. People keep forgetting that Roddick and Safin used to be good players.

One other thing: Federer was not cut out for the modern baseline game on slow hard courts. He is by nature an aggressive player who plays best like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlTbDY9p8r4 or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz77Oy6mjnM. Nadal is a clay court expert who could easily transition his player to the slow hard courts. Djokovic entered when the courts when the courts were slow, so he was ready from the beginning. The fact that Federer has been able to play so well against grinders is amazing. Oh, and there's still the fact that he:

(1) Is able to keep up with a 1-handed backhand
(2) Never has forfeited a match because of injury; always plays through, even when he's sick
(3) Is 31

Perhaps it was because Federer was so much better. You have no case, give it a rest. Loosing is not an argument in Nadals and Djoks favour.
Perhaps Djok and Nadal are exploiting the vacuum era of Federer stepping down from peak form, hm...

Click to expand...

If he was so much better than all his competition why couldn't he beat a teenager? Seriously, the competition around now is far tougher than 04-07. Fed even lost to teenage Andy Murray in 2006. Berdych was also a teen I believe when he first beat Fed and so was Gasquet.

That's 4 teenage players Fed lost to from 04-07. Djokovic also beat him when he was barely 20 (turned 20, 2 months before notching up his first win against Fed) in 07. So in his dominant years, most of the losses he was suffering from, were against players aged 20 or under that currently make up the top 10. So Fed was THAT much better than the rest from 04-07 but lost against guys from the current crop who were in their teens at the time? Hmmmmm does NOT make sense at all.

It's because the new generation is actually tougher than the old. Tell me when did Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, old Agassi & Davydenko ever beat Fed during this period? Only Safin (1W) and Nalbandian (3W) were able to beat him during this period. Sure you could talk about Canas and guys like Volandri, Hrbaty and Costa who also beat him during that period, but they were never slam threats, much like Gasquet. Out of the slam threats there was only Safin and Nalby during that period that actually beat him, but they were never consistent enough to make slam or even masters semi's and finals to challenge him often enough even though they were in their peaks.

The fact that Rafa and Novak have lost to players in the current generation in majors show that they have the game to challenge them. Those guys have also beaten Fed in slams apart from Murray. but Murray does have a winning h2h against him...

So, I'm afraid it is you who doesn't have a case. And this is based on FACTS not some rubbish that you came up with that Fed was THAT much better than the rest, even though the "rest" we are talking about were stronger than the current generation. If Fed >>>> his generation, and his gen >>>> current gen, then Fed MUST be >>>>>>>> current gen, but that CANNOT be the case because he lost to them while they were teenagers and he was in his peak, not prime but in his PEAK.

If he was so much better than all his competition why couldn't he beat a teenager? Seriously, the competition around now is far tougher than 04-07. Fed even lost to teenage Andy Murray in 2006. Berdych was also a teen I believe when he first beat Fed and so was Gasquet.

That's 4 teenage players Fed lost to from 04-07. Djokovic also beat him when he was barely 20 (turned 20, 2 months before notching up his first win against Fed) in 07. So in his dominant years, most of the losses he was suffering from, were against players aged 20 or under that currently make up the top 10. So Fed was THAT much better than the rest from 04-07 but lost against guys from the current crop who were in their teens at the time? Hmmmmm does NOT make sense at all.

It's because the new generation is actually tougher than the old. Tell me when did Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, old Agassi & Davydenko ever beat Fed during this period? Only Safin (1W) and Nalbandian (3W) were able to beat him during this period. Sure you could talk about Canas and guys like Volandri, Hrbaty and Costa who also beat him during that period, but they were never slam threats, much like Gasquet. Out of the slam threats there was only Safin and Nalby during that period that actually beat him, but they were never consistent enough to make slam or even masters semi's and finals to challenge him often enough even though they were in their peaks.

The fact that Rafa and Novak have lost to players in the current generation in majors show that they have the game to challenge them. Those guys have also beaten Fed in slams apart from Murray. but Murray does have a winning h2h against him...

So, I'm afraid it is you who doesn't have a case. And this is based on FACTS not some rubbish that you came up with that Fed was THAT much better than the rest, even though the "rest" we are talking about were stronger than the current generation. If Fed >>>> his generation, and his gen >>>> current gen, then Fed MUST be >>>>>>>> current gen, but that CANNOT be the case because he lost to them while they were teenagers and he was in his peak, not prime but in his PEAK.

I don't even know whether Roddick, Nalby etc were better than Berdych, Tsonga, Murray but certainly nothing you have said proves it.

As I posted earlier, Fed lost to Agassi, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero, Hewitt and Nalby before he became world number 1. In fact in the summer after his first wimbledon title he went on to lose to Nalby twice, and also Roddick Ferrero and Hewitt.

He turned things around at the 2003 TMC and began to dominate the tour.

How is that different from Nadal and Djoko becoming more consistant recently and regularly beating players like Tsonga and Berdy. If Nadal were still regularly losing to players to Tsonga, Gonzalez and Blake in slams as he used to, he wouldn't be the player he is now.

As for the wins you mention of teenaged Murray, Berdy and Gasquet against Fed, gimme a break.

Re Berdy and Gasquet:
Yes Fed can sometimes struggle against an unknown and these guys played well in their first matches against him and surprised him. After those initial surprise losses, he notched 8 straight win against each, not falling again to Berdych until 2010 and Gasquet til 2011.

Murray: I'll agree Murray has a tricky game for Fed, but it would be wrong to say Murray was "beating him at his peak" given they only played two matches before 2008, with only 1 loss for Fed. That was Cincy 2nd round, and while Murray I'm sure did some good things, the context is not super-different to Fed's loss to Hrbaty in Cincy round 1 in 2004. Fed was just unable to effectively transition from Canada to Cincy before the institution of the bye in 2007. I didn't see the Murray match but I saw his first round which was an evening match and he looked awful in it and given that he had to play Murray the very next morning I wasn't at all surprised to see him go down. I mean I'm not trying to diss Murray; Fed may well have survived against a lesser opponant, but there's only so much you can read into one match that took place in specific circumstances.

Who cares if Nadal gave Roger problems because it's been mentioned for the upteempth time that Nadal is the worst match up for Roger in the history of tennis. Nadal was never better than Roger because the true test is against the field, which he wasn't as consistent as Roger. Nadal can beat Federer(because of the match up), but then losing to a lesser players means nothing. At the end of the day, it was Roger who won 3 slams/year & WTF, and Nadal only won 1 slam. Old Davydenko have beaten Nadal, but Nadal is better than him against the field, thus more accomplish. Losing to Davydenko is not going to make Nadal lose any sleep at night because it doesn't take away all of his slam titles.

I don't buy into this crap about teenage Nadal. He's a early bloomer and was a great player already in 2005. In fact, it was the only year that he won 11 titles(including 1 slam, 4 MS). If you guys knock old Fed for losing to players like Berdych, Murray, Nole, etc., then Nadal is even worse after he won his 1st slam.

Keep in mind many of these players are old now, Fed owns them while Nadal losing to them which further proof that Nadal enjoy the immense match up advantage over Federer. Also, when Fed loses, it was either in the final or late rounds, or to the eventual champion. But Nadal have countless of bad losses in the early rounds, low rank players which many end up getting destroyed by Fed in the final.

If he was so much better than all his competition why couldn't he beat a teenager? Seriously, the competition around now is far tougher than 04-07. Fed even lost to teenage Andy Murray in 2006. Berdych was also a teen I believe when he first beat Fed and so was Gasquet.

That's 4 teenage players Fed lost to from 04-07. Djokovic also beat him when he was barely 20 (turned 20, 2 months before notching up his first win against Fed) in 07. So in his dominant years, most of the losses he was suffering from, were against players aged 20 or under that currently make up the top 10. So Fed was THAT much better than the rest from 04-07 but lost against guys from the current crop who were in their teens at the time? Hmmmmm does NOT make sense at all.

It's because the new generation is actually tougher than the old. Tell me when did Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, old Agassi & Davydenko ever beat Fed during this period? Only Safin (1W) and Nalbandian (3W) were able to beat him during this period. Sure you could talk about Canas and guys like Volandri, Hrbaty and Costa who also beat him during that period, but they were never slam threats, much like Gasquet. Out of the slam threats there was only Safin and Nalby during that period that actually beat him, but they were never consistent enough to make slam or even masters semi's and finals to challenge him often enough even though they were in their peaks.

The fact that Rafa and Novak have lost to players in the current generation in majors show that they have the game to challenge them. Those guys have also beaten Fed in slams apart from Murray. but Murray does have a winning h2h against him...

So, I'm afraid it is you who doesn't have a case. And this is based on FACTS not some rubbish that you came up with that Fed was THAT much better than the rest, even though the "rest" we are talking about were stronger than the current generation. If Fed >>>> his generation, and his gen >>>> current gen, then Fed MUST be >>>>>>>> current gen, but that CANNOT be the case because he lost to them while they were teenagers and he was in his peak, not prime but in his PEAK.

Click to expand...

Read emets post.
And you pick and choose, some losses count and some does not at your convenience. If Fed wins its because it is weak competition, and if he looses its because he is weak, we have heard it ok. He met the gamut and came up plus 90% three years in a row. Live with it.
And when did I say Feds gen >>>> current gen? Stop misrepresenting.

So, I'm afraid it is you who doesn't have a case. And this is based on FACTS not some rubbish that you came up with that Fed was THAT much better than the rest, even though the "rest" we are talking about were stronger than the current generation. If Fed >>>> his generation, and his gen >>>> current gen, then Fed MUST be >>>>>>>> current gen, but that CANNOT be the case because he lost to them while they were teenagers and he was in his peak, not prime but in his PEAK.

Click to expand...

If I said Feds gen >>>> current gen, you would have a case, because I would be as dumb as you. But even in that case, you would not have a case, because we would just be equally dumb. Such is your "case"....

Roddick was top ten for ten years, not bad. Asking where players are who have stopped playing, or are in the twilight of their career is really uhm unintelligent. And that Federer is part of your fearsome three in the end of his career is only a an argument in his favour (for the umpteenth time..).

Click to expand...

Yah with the exception of Roddick all gone . They haven't retired ....they just suck.

Ferrero the former #1 of the weak era is playing Joker in the first round of Wimbledon.

He never left he just got blown away by the new generation . So is Blake , baghdatis and gonzo just retired ....but he was busy getting blown away as was
Hewitt.

And yes obviously Feds still around because he is a goat and always was....

Pat Cash feels Djokovic has been showing better performance than 16-time Grand Slam champion Roger Federer, because Serbian has dominated greater opponents in the men’s singles like Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray and Mardy Fish. Cash said Murray and Nadal also very tough players, where the players is having the ability to return back strongly any time in the match. He added Jo-Wilfried Tsonga of France is another tough player, who is having the most of the chances to make his appearance in the ATP World Tour Finals.

you are seriously the most annoying poster ever on these boards. There's a difference between having your opinion and literally shoving it down everyone's throats. Give it a rest. I honestly am hoping they ban you so I dont have to see your crap posts everyday.

you are seriously the most annoying poster ever on these boards. There's a difference between having your opinion and literally shoving it down everyone's throats. Give it a rest. I honestly am hoping they ban you so I dont have to see your crap posts everyday.

Pat Cash feels Djokovic has been showing better performance than 16-time Grand Slam champion Roger Federer, because Serbian has dominated greater opponents in the men’s singles like Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray and Mardy Fish. Cash said Murray and Nadal also very tough players, where the players is having the ability to return back strongly any time in the match. He added Jo-Wilfried Tsonga of France is another tough player, who is having the most of the chances to make his appearance in the ATP World Tour Finals.

Read emets post.
And you pick and choose, some losses count and some does not at your convenience. If Fed wins its because it is weak competition, and if he looses its because he is weak, we have heard it ok. He met the gamut and came up plus 90% three years in a row. Live with it.
And when did I say Feds gen >>>> current gen? Stop misrepresenting.

Click to expand...

Well if you don't think Fed's gen >>>> current gen, then you're admitting that current get is >>>> Fed's gen.

And no they are not equal, no generation is.

Also, never said Fed was weak if he lost, just saying more of the current crop could beat him while he was in his peak and they were teens whilst his gen couldn't beat him apart from 2 guys that had talent but never had the consistency to be a threat to him at majors. Just proves there are more players from the current crop that had game to beat peak Fed than previous gen, which in turn proves that the current gen players are tougher.

Federer's won 74 tournaments to Nadal's 50 tournaments. Fairly close considering Nadal's almost five years younger. About even. It's about five tournament a year for Nadal to catch up and I think he's up to that.

Nadal wins at an 82.8% to Federer's 81.5. Very close with an edge to Nadal. In case anyone's curious I don't believe Federer's winning percentage was higher five years ago.

Federer has won 16 majors in 53 attempts for 30.2%. Nadal's won 11 majors in 32 attempts for 34.4%. By percentage Nadal's ahead but Federer has still won five extra majors. Close considering that Nadal have a monopoly on the French Open every year and is a threat to win all the other majors.

Objectively in my opinion (and of course anyone can take it or leave it) while a person can argue that Federer is a greater player than Nadal, there is no reasonable argument that Federer is a MUCH GREATER player than Nadal. Now of course Federer can still add to his total.

Now to keep up with the thread topic. No one can necessarily assume a weak or strong field. We can make subjective arguments but it is just opinions. Federer won those tournaments and majors against a world class field and no one can take that away from him.

Currently as of 6/24/2012 Federer is 846-192 for 81.5%.
Now if we have go to the end of the 2007 season.

He's 39-6 this year, in 2011 Federer was 64-12, 2010 he was 65-13, 2009-61-12, 2008-66-15. So since the end of 2007 he has been 295-58, a super record and a winning percentage of 83.6%. If we subtract that from his present record we have 551-134 for a winning percentage of 80.44%.

Federer's won 74 tournaments to Nadal's 50 tournaments. Fairly close considering Nadal's almost five years younger. About even. It's about five tournament a year for Nadal to catch up and I think he's up to that.

Nadal wins at an 82.8% to Federer's 81.5. Very close with an edge to Nadal. In case anyone's curious I don't believe Federer's winning percentage was higher five years ago.

Federer has won 16 majors in 53 attempts for 30.2%. Nadal's won 11 majors in 32 attempts for 34.4%. By percentage Nadal's ahead but Federer has still won five extra majors. Close considering that Nadal have a monopoly on the French Open every year and is a threat to win all the other majors.

Objectively in my opinion (and of course anyone can take it or leave it) while a person can argue that Federer is a greater player than Nadal, there is no reasonable argument that Federer is a MUCH GREATER player than Nadal. Now of course Federer can still add to his total.

Now to keep up with the thread topic. No one can necessarily assume a weak or strong field. We can make subjective arguments but it is just opinions. Federer won those tournaments and majors against a world class field and no one can take that away from him.

Click to expand...

Boy thats a whole lot of explanation .....

To me it's much more simple .....Nadal is basically undefeated against fed in real tennis -a.k.a. Best of five.

Their record is 10-3. Feds only wins came once when Nadal was 17 years old (and fed barely won) and the other two came on grass when Nadal was labeled as a clay court specialist and still relatively in diapers .

Since that time Federer has NEVER beaten Nadal in a best of five . It's been 5 years since Fed won in a best of . And again that was Nadal at 20 on grass...barely 20....closer to 19.

Seems to me that if you beat your opponent that badly it makes you better.

I don't need to. Your entire comparitive framework is flawed, because your comparing two indviduals 5 years apart with completely disparate career growth trajectories. "Career" match winning percentages are therefore completely useless in this regard as a standard for comparision.

Federer has played 1038 matches since 1999 ... avg. app. 74 matches per year (2012 inclusive).

Nadal has played 703 matches since 2001 ... avg. app. 59 matches per year (2012 inclusive).

Also, never said Fed was weak if he lost, just saying more of the current crop could beat him while he was in his peak and they were teens whilst his gen couldn't beat him apart from 2 guys that had talent but never had the consistency to be a threat to him at majors. Just proves there are more players from the current crop that had game to beat peak Fed than previous gen, which in turn proves that the current gen players are tougher.

Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read my post Shame.

Here's some food for thought at well. Roger's sucky generation even past their prime has given some stuff for the current crop to think about: Davy, Nalby, Roddick have all had their wins against these guys since 2008, not to mention a way-past-it Safin who blew Djoko off the court in Wimby 2008 (Fed handled him easily in the semi). What does that say about the current guys?

(won't even mention that such lower-tier Fed gen players like Blake, Youzhny and Gonzo could beat Rafa on hardcourt GS's when Rafa was already world #2)

Btw, you lump Nalby w/ Safin as someone who could have stood up to Fed at majors but lacked consistancy. I'll grant you Safin since he got the 2005 AO win and pretty much dissapeared from serious contention after that.

Such was not the case w/ Nalby - he and Roger played 9 times during Roger's peak from the 2003 TMC - 2006 and the record was 8-1 Federer, with the one loss coming when Roger had just gotten off crutches and was not yet fit enough for a five set match.

Prior to 2003 TMC Nalby was Roger's nemesis and had just booted him out of Cincy and USO. They played again in the QF of the 2004 AO at Nalby's absolute peak, coming off his near win against Roddick at the USO semi in the previous GS. Many pundits believed the winner of the Nalby/Fed QF would go on the take the title and so it proved. Turning around his record against Nalby was one of the requisite keys for Roger to dominate the game. (Yes, Fed did have to overcome challenges in his career, what a shocker.)

Which is why for me when he lost twice to Nalby at the end of 2007 that was one of the cracks I saw in the level he'd sustained the previous years. Obviously the loss to Gonzo the next week confirmed that impression.